Typical of circumstances to change shortly after I made my edit! Thanks for your good work on keeping that page somewhat sane and sensible from all the anon posting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've declined your A7 as it isn't applicable to coats of arms (in this case, unfortunately). I've prodded it as being dubious, non-notable and possibly hoax. You are welcome to prod2, or find another CSD - but I can't think of one that fits (unless it can be shown to be hoax....) Peridon (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedies on that list, as apparently it is public domain (at least in the USA), and it's hardly a short article... I've prodded it, and again you are welcome to prod2. If the prod is removed, I'll AfD it (unless you get there first...). Peridon (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I figured that the page was going to get a bit of a attention and needed some work. Hack (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this, please? --John (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPG, "talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation ... irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." The editor was merely answering his own rhetorical question, adding nothing to any debate. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it a way of asking why better sources hadn't been found? Perhaps not the best way, but I certainly didn't see it as removable or completely off-topic. --John (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Kelvin Easton and Mark Duggan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cavalry (Message me) 14:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB. Given that this subject has some coverage in at least two major newspapers, I didn't think that speedy was the way to go here. Feel free to bring it to AfD, though, if you think deletion is warranted. Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late response, but my access has been a bit patchy in the last week or so, as I was out of the country. Yes, I see what you mean, although I think I've got the measure of the issue! Nick Cooper (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Jury in Dianne Brimble Cruise Death Trial (October 20, 2009). As our article is missing this information, {{update}} is warranted. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion of Sayreville Middle School, because all schools are automatically exempt from CSD A7 (see the guideline at WP:CSD#A7). However, standard practice is that middle schools are not default notable (like high school and higher level schools are), so I just redirected the page to the school district (Sayreville Public Schools). If the original editor tries to undo the redirect and make an article, I'll take it to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've retargeted this redirect after redirecting its target (uh, did I get that right? okay...) Anyway, I've just sent it to WP:RFD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Metny has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 00:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI WWGB, I've decided to nominate Death of Wang Yue for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Wang Yue. Hope you don't mind! Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dave Thompson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello WWGB! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:EBHS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WWGB, I noticed that you want to delete the entry and also major parts of the article because of a disagreement about the focus. Please move discussion about deletions to the Talk Page and give others a chance to weigh in on the larger issue. You have initiated a deletion of the entry already and so you should allow the material to speak for itself and the community to have its chance to judge. I look forward to working with you and I really appreciate your passion about this topic! Thank you, Crtew (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've continued the discussion about the death of this person at Talk:Herta_Bothe#Death. I'd appreciate it if we could discuss this one (for what it's worth I'm just doing maintenance) but am interested to find the answer either way. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a point to the two pictures of Qantas planes; the pic of the aircraft on the ground was cunningly within the part of the story of the grounding; the pic of an aircraft in the air was cunningly in the part about the resumption of flying. You were not to know. - Peter Ellis - Talk 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't know whether you know, who is the person you reverted two times. He wasn't a politician, he wasn't a notable man in Hungary. He was just a member of a little racist group of a little Hungarian village Gyöngyöspata. Crufjsa (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tamás Eszes a banned racist a group's member, he does not have any significance in Hungary. He is not eligible on the list. Infel (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be there until a month if I add my grandmother for the list, and nobody will delete it? Ridiculous,this is the list of notable deaths in 2011. Infel (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, you wrote an article about a person who is not notable. Are you satisfied? Hahahaha. Crufjsa (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw you talking to young Rhain on his page and was just approaching you to get a second opinion on my own userpages - I've got one which is a kind-of article I had in progress but haven't touched in ages; would you suggest archiving that off onto my computer and deleting the page if I haven't touched it in a while and don't foresee returning to it in the near future? Thanks haha. Comics (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please help reach consensus by weighing in your opinion here. Thanks! Oz ^talk 07:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm opening this discussion again. Feel free to contribute.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that watches over the "Deaths of..." articles, right? Patrice Oneal died on November 29, but he's listed under November 28. Could you change that? B-Machine (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)  Done. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a level 3 warning. If it happens again a level 4 warning followed up by a block is appropriate. He has had plenty of chances but no warnings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there is some policy or precedent, and I admit my wording looks awkward, but this edit at least confuses the issue and to me is downright misleading. McKenzie did not play the same sport as Willi Entermann, Ioan Drăgan, Gary Ablett (the Englishman) et al. and your edit makes it appear as if they did. -- Mattinbgn (talk)`

Football is a generic sport that includes soccer, rugby league, rugby union, gridiron and, yes, Australian football. The entry "Australian rules footballer" implies he was Australian (entries always begin with a nationality) and played a sport called "rules football" (?). WWGB (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Herb Capozzi: as discussed in [1], this person qualifies based on Notability (sport) - Canadian football, Notability (sports) - Ice hockey and Notability (politicians) and probably on several others. If you have difficulty determining notability yourself, then you should contact someone familiar with the fields, as per Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. --Big_iron (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly familiar with notability guidelines, thank you. At the time that you posted the death notice, there was no article on Capozzi. Now that Capozzi has an article, I have no issues with the death notice. FYI, only dead people with a Wikipedia article remain on Deaths in 20XX. WWGB (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your last statement seems to contradict "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." from Dealing with existing red links. I think that you are missing a fundamental point about notability: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." from Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. If that pattern of cleanup is being used as a work method for Deaths in 20XX, then it would appear to contradict a number of more general Wikipedia guidelines. It is probably more standard to check "What links here" before removing a red link; there would be at least a few pages of links for Herb, for example. --Big_iron (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you wrote the article Herb Capozzi. Mission accomplished. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WWGB!
Don't know if you noticed but I was reverting 173.34.166.26 (talk · contribs) too. I suspect that Afzalwas (talk · contribs) might be related, as they too were adding "pakblog.net" links. I have reverted Afzalwas, but I couldn't find a 'blog specific' warning template, so I just left a note. - 220 of ^Borg 09:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please help reach consensus by weighing in your opinion here. Thanks! Oz ^talk 08:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you really think if something is not relevant to some section of an article it should be completely deleted? Btw if you read the source she was made brand ambassador in honor of her achievement. --SMS ^Talk 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I may be cynical, but being a "brand ambassador" is a commercial relationship in the same way that a cricketer endorses a cricket bat. Was there a payment to Arfa Karim for her role? I do not believe that promoting a mobile phone is notable, in the same way that commercial endorsements by a celebrity are not notable. Even the reference ([2]) looks like a press release. This whole matter smells like a publicity stunt for the Pakistan Telecommunication Company and not any sort of notable achievement. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point now, but I find this brand ambassadorship different from the usual brand endorsement by celebrities because she wasn't part of any promotion campaign for the said wireless broadband service (3G EVO) (And that is why I assume she also didn't get paid). It just looks to be an honorary title given to her. And the reference is of an interview of Senior Executive Vice President of PTCL by a Pakistani newspaper Daily Times. Sorry, I restored the content hastily before knowing your pov. If you still want it to be removed, please do it and we can continue discussion as required. --SMS ^Talk 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you know Pakistan better than me, I am happy to accept your advice that it was not a commercial arrangement. No problem! Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You changed my edit in the list of people who died recently. On Sarig is a pen name. the real name is Shraga Gafni. It is the name of the article in the Hebrew Wiki. This author had several pen names. Some of them famous. On Sarig is one of the famous. Avner Carmeli is another famous (in Israel) pen name of the same author, but the author was well known also by his real name, Shraga Gafni. I'm not going to move the article because i do here only minor edits, but it is the right thing to do.Tushyk (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal of the parents religion from the family section

1. three of the children are semi-notable so should be mentioned by name in the box
2. I see no harm in parents being mentioned, where its verifiable, but wont argue the point
3. Infobox is not the right place for Australian of the year award IMHO: its implies a greater prominence to what he's know for ie. fraud. Further, I did a quick scan of a dozen or so recipients and none had that in their infobox.
4. That net worth figure was 4 years old. It could be absolutely anything now. Who knows?
5. Sentenced to 7 years, served 4 years, I believe.

PS. Currency amounts are written "A$265 million", not "$A 265 million". Refer WP:$. Moondyne (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I like your work. If you have the time later please check out the Oba Chandler article. Its a GA article that perhaps could become a FA in the future. If you find anything that could be done to improve further please do. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your comments. I created the redirects as I don't feel that those two individuals are notable enough to merit standalone articles, but are valid search terms. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any report at all that Hughes has been interviewed - no -and he never will be either. The complainant sold her story to the highest bidder before alleging a crime - I am tired of users using the trial by press to refuse to allow the truth over verification - he has not been interviewed -show me anything that asserts he has? Youreallycan 01:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can reasonably assert Hughes has not been charged as it would have been in the media. There is simply no evidence whether Hughes has been interviewed by police or not, hence we say nothing on that topic. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If task force ruskin had interviewed Hughes there would clearly be a citation and a statement - he has not been interviewed - thats the simple truth that you object to - has he been interviewed by the police in secret? Youreallycan 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you added a CSD notice just after I'd nominated it for deletion using the longer process. Should I request to have my nomination withdrawn? dci | TALK 05:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have a list that I try and run through every six months or so. (It's still missing a bunch of WA MPs at the moment, which I really must get around to adding ...) Frickeg (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WWGB. I don't believe that this edit of yours at the Jason Russell page was justified. The comment you removed may be wrong, but I don't think there's any policy that says that comments must (or even should) be removed from talk pages simply because they are incorrect. It looks like censorship, or an attempt to inhibit discussion. I would encourage you to self-revert. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I consider the comment to be trolling (per WP:TPOC) and untruthful, and hence eligible for removal. I do not intend to revert myself. WWGB (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not blatant trolling. It's not swear words, obscenities, death threats, or anything of that nature. Its being incorrect is not relevant. There is no policy saying users are allowed to remove comments from talk pages because they are incorrect (if incorrect comments are made, then point out that they are incorrect: don't remove them). You had no good grounds for removing the comment, and I would ask you again to self-revert; otherwise, I will consider reverting you myself. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Deaths in April 2010', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/319516,bishop-dies-on-way-home-from-polish-plane-crash-commemorations.html

• You added this in May 2010.
• I tried to load this link on 13 March, 15 March, 17 March and today, but it never worked.
• I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm fairly new to doing anything on Wikipedia other than editing articles, so please excuse my ignorance of the nuances of proposing articles for deletion. In the case of the above article, although the article is listed under proposed articles for deletion, there isn't a discussion page for the deletion: I was wondering what the rationale for using one method or the other (subst v transclude?) was.TheLongTone (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi WWGB, here is a site with references to all scientists: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp in section Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator? (Terraflorin (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

I was about to create the category.... :o Mar4d (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should create it before you populate it. WWGB (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to Wikilink to Wiktionary? I do not. The page you Wikilinked to is a disambiguation page - for some reason people do not like Wikilinks to disambiguation pages.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murder_of_Oksana_Makar#Requested_move Thanks! 12:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you have reverted some of the same stuff I have been dealing with from a couple of IP's. Could you please take a look at the contributions of:

58.187.42.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.187.75.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Most of the information these IP's have added are still live... and they are still at it BTW[3] We have been reverting the John Miles stuff, but my question is if there is anything else useful about the other information being added? Some of the minor changes are obviously legit, but the bulk of it I am unsure of because I am not an expert on Eagles history. If the majority of the information these two IP's have been adding is incorrect or nonsense, then I would like to restore the pages to versions before the IP's touched them, at least on the Eagles related articles. Granted, I would have to check first that I am not in danger of violating 3RR first if that is what we intend to do. Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reply and I share your feelings on the matter. It is probably not worth the trouble to sift though all the mess. I was away for a while tonight, sorry, but I am working on a solution to this with an admin, that is if they don't get blocked anyway in the meantime. Thank you for your efforts. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 07:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fire has been put out, but there still may be a little clean up to do. There remains several changes made by the vandal that are still live in these articles. For example, here[4] is the diff between the March 30 version of The Very Best of Eagles before the vandal first touched the article and the current version. Are you OK with these changes? It has crossed my mind that we should restore clean versions in all the affected pages and add back only what we know is legit and the protection templates. Just to make sure no other nonsense got slipped through. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of M.O.X (talk) at 08:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! In April you tagged the above article with G12, but then reverted yourself. I think you were initially correct, almost all the text came from http://vetmedicine.about.com/od/veterinaryqa/a/Anal-Sacs-and-Scooting.htm . The same article was added virtually untouched into Anal gland on the 2nd feb - I have removed it from here , and also added the copyvio template to anal sac expression. Thats the limit of my procedural knowledge (which is probably faulty?), can you progress? PS, Also removed same content from Dog grooming - tyvm 94.195.187.69 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you delete completed edit requests on Talk:Deaths in 2012. Is this a matter of policy or just a personal preference? I'd like to ask you about it before potentially starting a discussion about it on that page, as you are the only one who appears to do it. Guyovski (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WWGB. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sri Lankan Memes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G7 request was not placed by the account that originated the article. Let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, ignore that - in complex situations the CSDHelper script sometimes doesn't work out ocrrectly who first placed the tag. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than both events relating to the sinking of a boat carrying asylum seekers between Java and Christmas Island leading to the death of many of the passengers, yep you are right - they have nothing in common. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are secondary? On what (apparently blanket) basis if I may ask?

Loginnigol (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you've altered the width of all the Death TOCs? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On my monitor (and presumably many others) the last few days of the month wrapped on to a second line. It looked very ordinary and ugly, like this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28

29 30 31

The adjusted template now looks OK on my monitor, but it may look horrible elsewhere. If you are going to use a manual TOC in preference to an auto TOC, you will need to ensure it looks OK on every user monitor, not just your own. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay. I couldn't figure out how to centre it, so I had to mess around with indentation. Hadn't thought how it would look on other monitors. I'll seek technical help elsewhere. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you, but does this look alright? DoctorKubla (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]